2016-04-16 00:00:00
THE COMPETITION THAT ENDS WITH DISAPPOINTMENT
The Education Campuses Pre-Selective Architectural Project Competition, announced in 2013, has been discussed for a long time with the problematic progressive process. We asked the project owner who received the 1st prize for the points where the process was coming and the residents.
After the competition was concluded in 2014, the administration contacted all the project authors and requested the proposals. Proposals submitted by the authors for 10,000 student capacity training campus projects were not accepted due to high prices. The capacity of the project was requested to be reduced to 5,000 pupils, so the project was revised. The revised proposals were not accepted by the administration.
According to the experience of the authors, there were unrealistic economic expectations of the project's cost in the proposal process. These expectations did not allow them to be realized by sticking to the principles of the projects. The Administration gave up the 1st prize projects and started to negotiate with the 2nd prize holders. They chose to progress with own initiative. Most of the teams did not work with the administration because they did not approve this unethical behavior.
Fatih Yavuz, the author of the project that won the Ağrı Dogubeyazit Education Campus Architectural Project Competition, commented on the process as follows:
We created a project for the Ağrı region in the 2nd stage of the MEB Training Campus. I will try to convey what we have experienced in the process.
After the colloquium, the administration gave us the same superficial information about how the process would work as well as they gave the 1st prize-winning owner of each region. They wanted to prepare an offer for us. We really did a lot of effort to move together at this stage. Unfortunately, we could not move together and afterward, we made dozens of phone calls with the administration. I think the most disturbing thing was that the project owners were tried to play off against each other. They gave the names of the telephone or face-to-face meetings to tell which project owner had signed or accepted which condition. We understood that sharing this information with us was aimed at accepting the offer. We do not accept it because of the fact that both the process starts to become tiring and the team cannot see the future.
Actually, this offer did not make any sense to us. An administrator, who acts as a guarantor, had suggested that architects would break the project costs into the first stage, and if needed, the architect would be able to pay the engineer the cost of the process, either by not paying or paying funny prices. The architects and the engineers would take the risks and they were almost never going to earn; It was not fair. Moreover, as this guarantee, which is tried to be given in a country where the administrators are absent tomorrow, is meaningless. It has been revealed how the process will continue when the number of students is arbitrarily reduced to one half and 5000.
At this point, the second prize of our region, Gökhan Aksoy's position in the process also made us very happy. Although we say we would not accept it, he did not accept his offer. The administration wanted to discuss with the group that won the third prize in our region. I learned this from the award-winning Orhan Uludağ by phone calling me. Then we heard that the signatures were taken for our region.
Later we wanted to discuss this in the association. On an evening the people shared everything with each other. It turns out that there was a very vulpine prepared agreement, and the administration did not have to continue with us. I understand that everyone has a reason to draw these projects.
The one who is trying to break us into each other is not in place right now and all the guarantees that he has given. In this process, I think that we should stand upright against the mentality of 'I will do what I want', but we did not. Because we have been in a position that this model of exploitation can be preferred by other administrations.
The result I got myself was that; it is not so easy to act with my colleagues, and unfortunately, we are mostly at the source of the situations we are approaching. We need to start correcting the situation from the inside.
After the competition was concluded in 2014, the administration contacted all the project authors and requested the proposals. Proposals submitted by the authors for 10,000 student capacity training campus projects were not accepted due to high prices. The capacity of the project was requested to be reduced to 5,000 pupils, so the project was revised. The revised proposals were not accepted by the administration.
According to the experience of the authors, there were unrealistic economic expectations of the project's cost in the proposal process. These expectations did not allow them to be realized by sticking to the principles of the projects. The Administration gave up the 1st prize projects and started to negotiate with the 2nd prize holders. They chose to progress with own initiative. Most of the teams did not work with the administration because they did not approve this unethical behavior.
Fatih Yavuz, the author of the project that won the Ağrı Dogubeyazit Education Campus Architectural Project Competition, commented on the process as follows:
We created a project for the Ağrı region in the 2nd stage of the MEB Training Campus. I will try to convey what we have experienced in the process.
After the colloquium, the administration gave us the same superficial information about how the process would work as well as they gave the 1st prize-winning owner of each region. They wanted to prepare an offer for us. We really did a lot of effort to move together at this stage. Unfortunately, we could not move together and afterward, we made dozens of phone calls with the administration. I think the most disturbing thing was that the project owners were tried to play off against each other. They gave the names of the telephone or face-to-face meetings to tell which project owner had signed or accepted which condition. We understood that sharing this information with us was aimed at accepting the offer. We do not accept it because of the fact that both the process starts to become tiring and the team cannot see the future.
Actually, this offer did not make any sense to us. An administrator, who acts as a guarantor, had suggested that architects would break the project costs into the first stage, and if needed, the architect would be able to pay the engineer the cost of the process, either by not paying or paying funny prices. The architects and the engineers would take the risks and they were almost never going to earn; It was not fair. Moreover, as this guarantee, which is tried to be given in a country where the administrators are absent tomorrow, is meaningless. It has been revealed how the process will continue when the number of students is arbitrarily reduced to one half and 5000.
At this point, the second prize of our region, Gökhan Aksoy's position in the process also made us very happy. Although we say we would not accept it, he did not accept his offer. The administration wanted to discuss with the group that won the third prize in our region. I learned this from the award-winning Orhan Uludağ by phone calling me. Then we heard that the signatures were taken for our region.
Later we wanted to discuss this in the association. On an evening the people shared everything with each other. It turns out that there was a very vulpine prepared agreement, and the administration did not have to continue with us. I understand that everyone has a reason to draw these projects.
The one who is trying to break us into each other is not in place right now and all the guarantees that he has given. In this process, I think that we should stand upright against the mentality of 'I will do what I want', but we did not. Because we have been in a position that this model of exploitation can be preferred by other administrations.
The result I got myself was that; it is not so easy to act with my colleagues, and unfortunately, we are mostly at the source of the situations we are approaching. We need to start correcting the situation from the inside.
CONTINUE
